Polpeohttps://polpeo.com
Social Media SimulationsMon, 05 Nov 2018 18:09:02 +0000en-GBhourly1https://i0.wp.com/polpeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/polpeo-site-icon.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1Polpeohttps://polpeo.com
323261783176Nike and the importance of meaningful brand valueshttps://polpeo.com/nike-and-the-importance-of-meaningful-brand-values/
https://polpeo.com/nike-and-the-importance-of-meaningful-brand-values/#respondFri, 14 Sep 2018 13:21:37 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4907Any team can brainstorm a handful of values and stick them on the company website. It doesn’t mean the brand lives by them. Words are often easy, actions less so. When Nike decided to work with former NFL player, Colin Kaepernick, on its new campaign, the public reaction was mixed. Some viewed it as a...

]]>Any team can brainstorm a handful of values and stick them on the company website. It doesn’t mean the brand lives by them.

Words are often easy, actions less so.

When Nike decided to work with former NFL player, Colin Kaepernick, on its new campaign, the public reaction was mixed.

Some viewed it as a cynical move designed to cash-in on the movement he started (regardless of whether people agree with the take a knee movement or not, controversy creates cash).

Others were outraged and started posting videos of themselves burning their Nike branded gear (which, as people pointed out, was more self-defeating than anything else as Nike already had their money).

But the overriding feeling seems to be that this was a courageous move by a brand that understands its audience and isn’t afraid to act on its values. Nike earned a lot of kudos from those who support Kaepernick. Many view it as a brand brave enough to take a stand on a contentious issue at the risk of angering a large portion of its customer base.

Nike’s stock took an initial hit but recovered after a few days. The campaign paid off. Its online sales spiked 31% over the weekend following the campaign’s launch.

What is the take a knee movement?

The take a knee movement began when Colin Kaepernick started a silent protest against police brutality by refusing to stand during the US national anthem (which is played before the start of sporting events).

His protest spread, and caught the attention of President Trump, who declared that the protest was against the anthem. Kaepernik, and anyone who joined him, were portrayed as unpatriotic. This tapped into the feelings of some of those who were against the protest.

Any brand, or public figure, commenting on the protests will find themselves at the centre of a storm of both protest and adulation as a result.

So, why is Nike working with Colin Kaepernick?

Staying true to the brand mission

Nike’s mission statement is to “bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world” (and it defines everyone as an athlete).

According to a former Assistant General Counsel at Nike, the brand’s core values are performance, authenticity, innovation and sustainability. These mission and values played a role in its decision to work with the leader of one of the biggest social movements of the past few years.

Creating iconic brand campaigns

Joshua Hunt, writing for The Atlantic, argues that Kaepernick has become an icon and that Nike loves working with iconic people, hence the campaign.

Colin Kaepernick has become an icon. GQ recognised him as its Citizen of the Year in 2017. Amnesty International awarded him with its Ambassador of Conscience Award in April 2018 for demonstrating a “spirit of activism” and “exceptional courage”.

Nike wants iconic campaigns, and it is willing to risk losing the goodwill (and maybe future custom) of some people to achieve its goals.

It’s working. The business has seen its share price increase to more than what it was before the launch of the campaign, and analysts are calling the ad campaign “a stroke of genius”. Its sales are up.

Should brands be political?

As we’ve said before on this blog, brands are inherently political. They’re run by people, so it’s sometimes hard for them to be impartial without looking cold. Brands also have values that they claim to find important, yet if they’re unwilling to back up these values with supportive words and actions when they’re needed, some will start to see them as nothing more than meaningless guff.

Getting involved in a campaign may not always be in the best interest of a brand. There will always be people who see any brand involvement as trying to profit from people’s pain. However, it’s a risk that brands need to consider if they want to stand by their values.

]]>https://polpeo.com/nike-and-the-importance-of-meaningful-brand-values/feed/04907Why being honest matters in a crisishttps://polpeo.com/why-being-honest-matters-in-a-crisis/
https://polpeo.com/why-being-honest-matters-in-a-crisis/#respondFri, 07 Sep 2018 11:58:49 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4895“Why is it important for companies to be honest in a crisis?” I’m talking to John Brown, founder of Don’t Cry Wolf, an agency that works with ‘no bullshit’ brands – brands that want to make honest and openness a core part of how they behave, and how they communicate. It seems so obvious that...

]]>“Why is it important for companies to be honest in a crisis?” I’m talking to John Brown, founder of Don’t Cry Wolf, an agency that works with ‘no bullshit’ brands – brands that want to make honest and openness a core part of how they behave, and how they communicate.

It seems so obvious that brands should be honest that I can hardly believe I’m asking the question. But it’s not obvious, at all. I know from our work with organisations of all types that when a crisis hits, honest is often the last thing they want to be.

“We’re sorry, we messed up.” “We didn’t secure our data properly.” “We took a risk, and it didn’t pay off.” “A terrible thing happened, and we’re going to put it right.” It’s rare to hear a company fess up to its mistakes during a crisis.

And you can understand why. Communicators advising companies to be transparent are likely to fall foul of legal advice to avoid the threat of litigation.

“It’s fear that stops brands being open and honest,” John tells me. “Brands go back into themselves in a crisis. They withdraw from the public. The public demand honesty but won’t accept mistakes made by humans. And above anything else, a company is a collection of humans.”

It’s true that people are pretty unforgiving of mistakes these days. We love to be outraged, and to share our outrage widely. That means a brand has to be tough to be honest. It takes great courage to be vulnerable.

Of course, you can’t suddenly change how you behave in the middle of a crisis. You have to do it way before that. That takes a real shift in culture and in thinking. And it’s brave. You have to change how you think. Don’t just be a ‘brand’. Be a human.

That inevitably led to a discussion about saying sorry. Now, neither of us are lawyers, and I know there are often good reasons for not saying sorry. But here’s an interesting thought: what if you could be genuinely sorry that something’s happened, but not admit liability? Here’s an example. My home was damaged by a fire two years ago that started in the flat above us. It’s an old warehouse building, so the fire spread quickly. No-one was hurt, thank goodness. We moved out while it was all rebuilt.

John said to me: “I can say to you that I’m sorry your flat burned down. That doesn’t mean it was my fault – I didn’t start the fire – but I’m genuinely sorry it happened.” It was a very human reaction.

Imagine your flights are cancelled, through no fault of the airline. How would you respond to an airline that forgot about liability for a bit, and just did the right thing? Never mind the cost, I can see you have three children and you want to get home. We’ll do everything we can to help, and we’ll sort out who pays for what, later. I have the ability to make this easier for you, so I will. My priority right now isn’t who’s at fault. It’s getting you and your family home.

“Don’t address a crisis from a comms perspective,” says John. “Address is from a human perspective. You’re a human, with the ability to help someone in a bad situation. If you do that, I guarantee you, your loyalty will go up.”

So, back to the original question: why does honesty matter? “Honesty is a market share issue. It’s a competitive issue. Brands know they need to change when they see their customers going off to a competitor. If you trust a brand, you’re loyal.”

And if that brand does the right thing by its customers in a crisis, that loyalty could be the difference between a business that weathers the crisis, and one that sinks.

]]>https://polpeo.com/why-being-honest-matters-in-a-crisis/feed/04895Six crisis management lessons from top brands at #PRWCRISIShttps://polpeo.com/six-crisis-management-lessons-from-top-brands-at-prwcrisis/
https://polpeo.com/six-crisis-management-lessons-from-top-brands-at-prwcrisis/#respondWed, 20 Jun 2018 08:23:21 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4841Who doesn’t love a crisis? Especially when it is not one you are involved with. I attended the PR Week Crisis Communications Conference last week and it was a great opportunity to hear about other crises and how various brands managed their way out of them. (Later that afternoon, Tamara and I ran a crisis...

]]>Who doesn’t love a crisis? Especially when it is not one you are involved with.

I attended the PR Week Crisis Communications Conference last week and it was a great opportunity to hear about other crises and how various brands managed their way out of them. (Later that afternoon, Tamara and I ran a crisis simulation for attendees, so it was great to experience some of the conference first.)

1. Be prepared to take on a new role during a crisis

As communicators, James Coyle, Head of PR, Social Media and CSR at Samsung, says, you will find yourself in a heightened role that normally you wouldn’t be involved in. For example while you may focus on Media Relations, you could find yourself writing customer emails, telephone script for customer services and helping to respond on social media.

Meghan Farren, Chief Marketing Officer, KFC UK & Ireland, at Yum!, said the team at KFC dropped their day to day jobs for 3 months to deal with the crisis. The media, PR, Digital and Technology team were all one team as they attempted to resolve the crisis. Farren highlights one of the main reasons that the crisis did not damage the brand long term was the fact that internal and external communications worked so closely together, with the objective of being open and honest with everyone affected.

2. Take control of the message early in the crisis

KFC felt it needed to take control and therefore took a more proactive stance, by taking out adverts in newspapers to apologise for the closure of its restaurants.

Due to the nature of the crisis (no one was dying) and the three years groundwork in its TOV, it was felt that the brand could poke fun at itself for running out of chicken. Farren also admits that the company couldn’t respond to everything due to the volume of comments/complaints during the first weekend of the crisis and therefore wanted to stop rumours and silly comments with its adverts.

For Samsung, it took slightly longer to take its own proactive stance, when it held a press conference on 23 January 2017, 174 days later after the first incident had been reported. Since the first reports of faulty batteries catching fire, Samsung had appointed 700 full-time researchers to look at over 200,000 devices and 30,000 batteries.

At the press conference, it showed the results of the investigation to help rebuild its reputation. It also shared its findings with the industry and as a result of the investigation now has an 8 point battery check to avoid any further issues with its batteries.

3. Managing a global versus a local crisis

For Samsung, this was a global issue that affected its products and therefore the coordination between all the markets was key to decide the next actions and make sure that all the markets implemented the same actions at the same time. While there were incidents taking place in various parts of the world, there was a total product recall (its second in 2 months) and a permanent hold on any further sales globally.

KFC’s crisis was only affecting the UK and due to the management structure at the company, Farren did not require global sign off for dealing with the crisis. She approved the stance and adverts for the apology, and kept Global informed of the situation in nightly calls.

4. Being prepared but not inflexible in your crisis strategy

While you can have a crisis playbook on hand, it is not as straightforward to be able to prepare for everything believes Coyle.

“You are probably going to rip up your rule book. You won’t be able to prepare for everything.”

As a company, you can prepare for the ways of working and procedural responses, but during a crisis you have to make the key decisions with the people in the room with the facts available at the time.

It was a similar situation with KFC.

“We had the principles of what to do during a crisis, but had no real strategy, as we hadn’t dealt with this before.”

5. Hold regular meetings during the crisis

Samsung held regular meetings at 8am every day with its crisis team in the UK Europe, Global, America and South Korea during the situation with the first item on the agenda of what’s happened since we last met and what will happen today. This was vital as it gave a temperature check of what was going and also meant everyone was up to speed to ensure communications were consistent.

For KFC, there were also regular calls. There was a daily call for about 100 people telling them what the latest development was. There were regular meetings at 7am, 11am, 2pm and 7pm. Farren’s sole job was to talk to the franchises to make sure they were properly equipped to deal with the various stakeholders, such as media, customers and employees. In addition to the meeting times, KFC also used Yammer as its internal communications tool as a central repository for documents, updates and information etc. The company also used WhatsApp groups, rather than email, to inform each group of the latest developments so there were groups set up for operations, supply chain, crisis comms, franchises etc.

6. Keep people updated on issues around the crisis

To minimise the damage during a crisis, one thing that both KFC and Samsung worked on was getting information out to all affected parties and quickly.

For Samsung, as soon as the Federal Aviation Administration in the US banned any Samsung 7 devices on any flights, the company had to set up stations at every airport so customers were able to swap phones and tablets before getting on the plane.

“Embrace the vacuum. A company doesn’t have to have the answers at every crisis point.” points out Coyle. It is not as easy to say when a company will be able to release information, although you can signpost when information is coming.

Farren says one of the biggest issues was getting the information out quickly enough.

“Pace was the biggest issue. We needed to be agile.”

KFC used the tracking of the media coverage to see what the opinion was but used social media as a way to anticipate the next stage. She highlights the comments on social media was useful in being able to see where it was going next. For example on social, it could see the increased volume of customers complaining about the lack of gravy and was able to predict that it would soon run out. As all KFC fans know, the gravy is made on-site and due to a lack of ingredients, it couldn’t prepare it.

These were some great insights by Samsung and KFC and it was enlightening to see how open the two representatives were about what must have been a torrid time for everyone involved. Both companies were able to control the crisis and manage their brand’s reputation by minimising damage.

What do you think about the steps that both companies took? Was it the right thing to do? We would love to hear your thoughts.

]]>https://polpeo.com/six-crisis-management-lessons-from-top-brands-at-prwcrisis/feed/04841Thoughts on managing a crisis from the PRCA’s Exeter simulationhttps://polpeo.com/managing-a-crisis-prca-exeter-simulation/
https://polpeo.com/managing-a-crisis-prca-exeter-simulation/#respondThu, 03 May 2018 12:53:19 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4807How quickly could you get sign off on a statement during a crisis? When should you respond to individuals on social media? And how much information is too much? These were just some of the questions raised after last night’s crisis simulation that Polpeo ran for the PRCA in Exeter. Getting sign off, quickly I...

]]>How quickly could you get sign off on a statement during a crisis? When should you respond to individuals on social media? And how much information is too much? These were just some of the questions raised after last night’s crisis simulation that Polpeo ran for the PRCA in Exeter.

Getting sign off, quickly

I once spoke to a lawyer who said she had got to draft 97 of a one-line crisis response before it was signed off by her client. Unsurprisingly, by the time it was released it was out of date and far too late to have any bearing on the outcome of the crisis.

While no-one in the PRCA group had experienced anything quite that bad, there was a very lively discussion about whether people would be able to get sign off quickly enough in a crisis in their (or their client’s) organisations. On the whole, those working in smaller teams in-house found it easier to get quick access to the people who could approve external comms. But there are things that you can do to speed up the process, whatever organisation you work for. I think fast sign-off comes down to four things:

Having someone on your crisis team who can sign off statements on behalf of the business. One (in-house) group member said that as soon as an issue breaks, the crisis comms team is assigned a crisis lead from the business who can approve everything straight away. That crisis lead will stay close to the comms team for as long as the issue is live, specifically to aid sign off.

Preparing statements in advance. Sod’s law says that how ever many statements you have prepared, the one issue you hadn’t predicted is the one you’ll face. But you can predict the types of crisis you might face, and prepare examples of comms to follow for each crisis type. And of course, you can practise adapting those statements for social media.

Having clear crisis roles defined in advance. Knowing who has responsibility for what is crucial in a crisis. If the CEO has sole responsibility for signing off on comms, and they are uncontactable, what happens?

Trust. This is the big one. If you’re going to respond quickly, you have to trust the team in charge of comms to do the right thing. Training helps here, of course, and rehearsal. It also means building a really strong relationship with whoever has ultimate responsibility for the crisis.

Responding to individuals

Whether to respond to individuals provoked a lot of discussion. Our crisis simulation scenario yesterday started with a series of social media posts from a disgruntled ex-employee. The teams quite rightly started by trying to contact him directly to resolve the situation. When the situation escalated, it became clear pretty quickly that the teams wouldn’t be able to respond to everyone individually who was posting about the issue.

We talked about triaging posts, and the group agreed that the best approach is to group people and respond according to the impact they could have on the crisis. For example, answering customers’ queries is as important during a crisis as it is at any other time. Journalists and influencers, left unanswered, could have a serious impact on reputation. Employees can really help the company weather the storm if they’re kept informed. Pinned posts and general information issue regularly on all channels are great ways to speak to a mass audience.

How much is too much?

And finally, how much is too much? I’m a great believer that in a crisis, you need to get information out, fast, in order to be the voice of authority. If people don’t get information from you, they’ll get it from someone else. It’s the only way to stay in control of the message.

But equally, you want to be 100% sure that the information you’re issuing is correct. So short, regular communication of facts as you verify them will help to quash rumours, establish your authority, and reduce the volume of incoming queries.

Whatever your approach is, the important thing is to agree it before the crisis hits. These kinds of discussions are great to have with your teams now, so that when the worst happens, you go into the crisis prepared, clear about your role, and knowing how to approach communications from the outset.

]]>https://polpeo.com/managing-a-crisis-prca-exeter-simulation/feed/04807The curious case of Wetherspoon’s social shutdownhttps://polpeo.com/the-curious-case-of-wetherspoons-social-shutdown/
https://polpeo.com/the-curious-case-of-wetherspoons-social-shutdown/#respondMon, 23 Apr 2018 11:55:39 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4797British pub chain JD Wetherspoon shut down all of its 900+ pub’s social media profiles this week, with the chairman, Tim Martin, citing a variety of reasons. Apart from his general opinion that people spend too much time on social media, and that it was being used to troll MPs, the chairman expressed concerns over...

]]>British pub chain JD Wetherspoon shut down all of its 900+ pub’s social media profiles this week, with the chairman, Tim Martin, citing a variety of reasons.

Apart from his general opinion that people spend too much time on social media, and that it was being used to troll MPs, the chairman expressed concerns over misuse of people’s personal data. He also expressed doubts that social media was vital to running a successful business.

Speaking to City AM, Martin said that the decision stemmed from the 2015 hack of its customer database. The breach saw 657,000 customer records stolen, and in the aftermath, the chain decided to delete its entire customer database and stop collecting information on customers. If no data’s collected, there would be no risk to personal data.

According to Martin, this had little impact on Wetherspoon’s business, and prompted them to ask pub managers if they thought social media had any impact on their business. After this consultation, the chain decided to simply take social media out of the equation.

Politically problematic

Wetherspoon has also had issues with fake accounts. In 2017 one account tweeted that Wetherspoon wouldn’t be allowing its staff to wear poppies to mark Remembrance Day, due to its multicultural customer base – this caused a backlash on social media which the brand had to deal with.

People are also using social media to call for a boycott of the pub chain due to its chairman’s support of Brexit. People are also wondering whether the sudden decision to delete its social media accounts may have something to do with the brand’s support of the vote leave campaign and the Cambridge Analytica revelations.

Wetherspoons = official referendum participant@vote_leave, AIQ & Facebook data all under investigationToday Wetherspoons deletes all social media accounts, including Facebookhttps://t.co/XVKrGGQdsW

There’s also the cheeky take-over of the official twitter account just as the shutdown was announced (someone clearly doesn’t like the chairman’s politics).

Regardless of the speculation, Wetherspoon has given clear reasons for leaving social media – but are they the right ones?

Social media can be a waste of time – if you don’t have the right strategy

Wetherspoon may think that social media isn’t vital for business success and that it’s simply a waste of time, but what the pubs are really saying is that they feel like they’re putting in a lot of effort on social media content and getting no results. This will be either because they didn’t have a social media strategy, or they had the wrong strategy.

Being on social media is pointless for brands if they’re only there because it’s what everyone else is doing. Why be on social media? Who is the brand trying to reach? What result do they want? Does the content they post motivate people to act?

The brand needs to know what went wrong here. If it posted pointless content on social media, what makes it think the content it posts on its own platforms will be any more inspirational?

Brands can’t dictate their customer’s social media use

https://twitter.com/Waterstones/status/985806176834260992

Wetherspoon’s chairman may believe that people spend too much time on social media, but his opinion doesn’t matter.

Customers will still use social media. They’ll still discuss the brand. Withdrawing from social media because you don’t like it is the equivalent of me hiding my face behind a cushion during an Alien film. The movie still plays, the characters still get eviscerated (okay perhaps the metaphor has gone too far, but you get the gist).

It might be possible to keep an eye on the brand’s social media reputation and not actively participate, but any brand that does this is putting itself at a disadvantage against competitors that do social media well. These brands use social media to develop relationships with their customer communities that helps them maintain good will during a crisis. They can even use social media to stop a developing crisis in its tracks. Wetherspoon has lost this advantage.

While some business leaders may not like certain aspects of social media or understand its benefits (and risks), it remains a major communications platform. People used social media before brands got involved and they’ll continue to use social media until they decide to move on.

They won’t stop talking about brands, and it’s doubtful that many will remember (or care enough) to become regular website visitors of those brands who abandon their social presences. Before making this decision, the brand needs to decide if it’s prepared to lose touch with customers and create barriers to engagement that could damage the brand in the long run.

]]>https://polpeo.com/the-curious-case-of-wetherspoons-social-shutdown/feed/04797The perils of change: lessons from the #KFCCrisishttps://polpeo.com/the-perils-of-change-lessons-from-the-kfccrisis/
https://polpeo.com/the-perils-of-change-lessons-from-the-kfccrisis/#respondFri, 16 Mar 2018 12:43:08 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4741In February, Kentucky Fried Chicken started working with a new “delivery partner”. Now, usually, most people wouldn’t care about this, but then hundreds of KFC branches closed down temporarily because they ran out of chicken and, well, a lot of people started to care. The Colonel is working on it. pic.twitter.com/VvvnDLvlyq — KFC UK &...

]]>In February, Kentucky Fried Chicken started working with a new “delivery partner”. Now, usually, most people wouldn’t care about this, but then hundreds of KFC branches closed down temporarily because they ran out of chicken and, well, a lot of people started to care.

Both KFC and its new delivery partner, DHL, started to get torn apart on social media with many people expressing their issues with the delivery company. What was a frantic time for the brand turned into a great case study of how to handle a crisis.

But there are still lessons that other brands learn.

Lesson one: prepare for the worst

A business decision – such as switching suppliers – may make sense, but what’s the worst thing that could happen as a result? Before making major decisions, it’s a good idea to prepare for the worst by looking at previous crises and simulating how your brand would respond if it found itself in a similar situation.

For example, a few days after the crisis, the GMB union went to the media. It had warned KFC “months ago” that switching to DHL would cause delivery problems. KFC had a long-standing relationship with a specialist food delivery company – Bidvest Logistics – but it was choosing to switch to DHL. As the Guardian reported, Bidvest operated out of six warehouses, while DHL has one distribution centre in Rugby.

The GMB also provided an example of what could happen if KFC made the switch.

“We warned them a few months ago. I wrote to KFC. I alluded to Burger King trying to cut costs and ending up with poorer quality service and poorer distribution. They had shortages, too, but not on the scale we’re seeing now at KFC. Within six months they were pleading with Bidvest Logistics to take it back.” – Mick Rix, GMB

Lesson two: communicate clearly with external and internal stakeholders during the crisis

Vague language can raise more questions. In a franchise business, like KFC, the brand speaks for their franchisees – making it even more important to know how they run their branch. In the case of KFC, many branches ordered stock just as they were running out, but this wasn’t accounted for when switching to the new logistics software. The ordering process didn’t carry over correctly, leaving the local franchises with no stock until the delivery firm got around to the order.

There was also confusion when it came to communication with customers.

Many frustrated people on social media wondered why someone couldn’t just pop out and buy chicken from somewhere else, but if they did that, it wouldn’t be KFC chicken (although Buzzfeed did report that some KFC staff were seen trying to buy chicken from local butchers).

One of the problems with having a popular brand that operates a franchise business lies in making customers understand that while some business decisions are made by the local branch, others – like where the food is sourced – are made at a higher level.

The media also wanted to know how the branch closures would affect those who work at KFC. A spokesperson told The Huffington Post that their salaried employees would be paid as normal, while those paid hourly would be paid on the average hours they had worked over the previous 12 weeks. (Staff were also being encouraged to take holiday leave, or being given alternative tasks.)

However, the spokesperson went on to say:

“Franchisees are seeking their own independent advice; however, the majority are following similar policies to cover hours, so we believe that the vast majority of franchisee team members are being paid at this time.”

The language here – “we believe”, “similar policies” and “vast majority” – is interesting and raises questions about how much control a brand has over how its franchisees operate.

It’s especially important that there’s a single, clear and consistent message being shared by the brand during a crisis.

Lesson three: admitting mistakes and taking action to prevent similar problems in the future

KFC did a great job of apologising for the situation and taking its customers complaints seriously. From taking out full-page apology ads in newspapers, to creating websites that allowed people to check whether the store they wanted to visit was open, KFC did all that it could to keep people updated about the situation.

It’s clear that KFC understands its customers and knows what they expect from, and love about, the brand.

KFC has seen sentiment improve because it responded to the crisis professionally and even switched back to its original logistics partner once it was clear that it was the better solution.

Businesses, especially ones that operate a franchise system, need to examine the KFC crisis and think about what they could do to prevent similar problems from impacting their brands. What are the worst-case scenarios? How would their teams respond to an outraged customer-base? How will they ensure that the brand’s messaging is clear and consistent? These answers are much better worked out before a real crisis hits.

As Andy Nairn said in Campaign, it’s likely that customers viewed the KFC crisis as a genuine mistake, rather than a delebarate breach of trust, especially as KFC was so fast in fixing the problem. If a brand can maintain trust through a crisis, it has a much better chance of making a quick recovery.

]]>https://polpeo.com/the-perils-of-change-lessons-from-the-kfccrisis/feed/04741Can humour be toxic to brands?https://polpeo.com/can-humour-toxic-brands/
https://polpeo.com/can-humour-toxic-brands/#respondTue, 09 Jan 2018 10:15:30 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4693There’s a big difference between funny and patronising – this is especially true for brands on social media. Of course, much of our humour is down to personal taste. What one person finds offensive, another may find side-splittingly funny. Being funny is really about good judgement (or, you know, lack of it). Know your audience....

]]>There’s a big difference between funny and patronising – this is especially true for brands on social media.

Of course, much of our humour is down to personal taste. What one person finds offensive, another may find side-splittingly funny.

Being funny is really about good judgement (or, you know, lack of it).

Know your audience. Know your relationship with them.

If I go to see a comedian perform live, I know what I’m getting. If I sit in the first few rows, I should also realise that said comedian may decide to use me as part of their routine.

But you don’t expect to be picked on or patronised when raising an issue with a brand representative.

The exception to the rule

Okay, some brands, like O2 or MoonPie, can get away with (or even become famous for) making fun of, or trading insults with, their customers. Usually this humour is part of an exchange, rather than an unexpected attack that the brand makes on the customer.

(The deleted tweet read: “Your time is wasted managing a social media account”)

However, some businesses just don’t get it.

Take the example of one chef, who used Facebook to let off steam about an annoying customer. She may not have been serious when she implied that she’d added a little extra to her vegan customer’s food, but she certainly provoked an angry reaction. In response, people began leaving one-star reviews of the restaurant on various sites.

Then there’s the Virgin trains twitter account. One customer was clearly annoyed when she tweeted the account to say that an older male employee had called her “honey” when meeting with her about a complaint.

The social media manager’s reply included the question: “would you prefer “pet” or “love” next time?”

Humour doesn’t have to be adversarial

We’re all more aware of our power these days. Who hasn’t sent an angry tweet about a late train, or having to wait in all day for something that never arrives?

Many of us know that posting about an issue on social media will get the brand’s attention faster than a call to their customer service team will.

Many of these posts may go unnoticed, lost in the general internet rage that we all seem to have these days, but sometimes they generate far more outrage than the initial transgression seems to merit. This happens when:

The issue is particularly emotive or strikes a chord with a lot of people (or one very influential person who shares the post).

When someone representing the brand responds in a way that causes consternation.

Brands can’t control who will take up the cause of a particular issue. But many spend time panicking about the prospect of getting attacked by a celebrity or powerful campaign group, rather than focusing on the only thing they can control – their response.

Customers aren’t the enemy

Most people don’t go out of their way to cause trouble for brands. They complain when they feel they’ve been wronged.

But some businesses owners don’t believe this. They remember the flurry of one-star reviews from angry customers and forget that the instigating incident often originated with the brand.

They start to see customers not as people like them, who just want an easy life and the service or product that they paid for, but as a volatile potential enemy – someone who’ll attack them if not handled in exactly the right way.

This also applies to campaign groups, most of which just want the company to help resolve an issue or to change a business practice that they deem harmful. In these cases a constructive dialogue can create valuable allies.

When humour is used in an adversarial way, people become dehumanised – a source of short-term profit rather than long-term loyalty. It’s a toxic attitude and we need to challenge it when we see it.

Humour shouldn’t be used as a weapon to attack people for providing genuine feedback, or for making reasonable requests as a customer.

]]>https://polpeo.com/can-humour-toxic-brands/feed/04693Social media crisis management in the age of angerhttps://polpeo.com/social-media-crisis-management-age-anger/
https://polpeo.com/social-media-crisis-management-age-anger/#respondTue, 19 Dec 2017 10:29:48 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4684I don’t know about you, but I didn’t need research to tell me that we’re all a bit angrier than we used to be. But, research we have. BMB recently conducted research in conjunction with The Drum and House51; it found that British people were “angrier as a nation” than they were in 2016. 21%...

I would be surprised by this, but then I remembered feeling outraged watching analysis of US political news before realising that I had no control over the financing of the American healthcare system, or the potential negative impact of the tax bill on anyone who isn’t Moneybags Mcginty.

And as anyone who’s trying to master the art of Zen knows, if something is way out of your control, you need to take a breath and focus on the stuff that is in your control.

And…what does this have to do with brands and, you know, crisis?

A lot of people are finding it easier to get angry. No matter what side of the pond you’re on, or what side of the political divide, there’s usually something in the day’s news to send your outrage meter into the stratosphere.

And social media is the perfect platform for this anger to spread. In 2016, a Beihang University study of millions of posts on Weibo found that anger spread faster on the platform than any other emotion. Anger, it turns out, is more influential than joy.

This is a problem for brands when dealing with anything from a full-blown crisis to a single dissatisfied customer on social media. One complaint on Facebook can become an entire thread of people reporting the same issue, or saying that they too have been waiting in all day for a repairman that never arrived.

People who may have been mildly frustrated, start to become angry as enraged people join the conversation. It’s easy to end up with a lot of negative sentiment on your Facebook page or directed at your Twitter account.

How can brands manage people’s anger?

Listen to what’s really being said

We’re not short of things to be angry about. It’s quite likely that the person flying into a rage about the cable guy not turning up is just at their particular ‘rage limit’ for the time being.

To the person dealing with the complaint, getting angry about a simple delay may seem excessive, but think about what the real issue is. They aren’t angry that the person is late, they’re angry that they’ve had to take the day off work when they didn’t need to, they’re angry that there was no text message to inform them there would be a delay. They’ve been inconvenienced and feel like the company doesn’t care about their time.

Even if you reply with sympathy, if you don’t understand why the customer is upset it will come through in the response.

Don’t be afraid of the S word

We’ve seen a lot of cases where brands refuse to apologise during a crisis. To apologise is to admit wrongdoing – what will the legal team say?

But expressing (genuine) empathy is one of the most important ways to overcome a crisis.

If the brand does nothing but post corporate sounding platitudes, or it just does a cut-and-paste of some parts of the press release, there’s no way to see that the brand cares about what’s happening – beyond caring about the impact on its reputation.

If those on the social media front lines don’t feel able to solve problems, they won’t be able to engage in constructive conversations.

Yes, significant issues need to be escalated (and there need to be guidelines in place about how to do this), but if all the social media customer service team can do is respond with vague replies, people will realise that they cannot solve their problems. The situation may just get worse.

Don’t hide critical content

Deleting Facebook comments that aren’t abusive, just critical of the brand, will damage the brand’s reputation. It’ll also make people angrier.

They’ll know that the brand cannot be trusted.

By keeping critical comments up and by solving the customer’s issue, brands show that they can accept justified criticism, that they listen and take action. This goes a long way in quelling anger and creating a positive perception of the brand.

Keep it conversational, not corporate

Social media started as a way for people to talk to people, not as a way for brands to talk to fans or to advertise their products. At its heart, social media is still driven by people-to-people conversations.

Whether it’s during a crisis, or just when they’re upset about something, people don’t want to talk to a faceless entity. They want to talk to a person.

Hiding behind cold corporate language distances the brand from its customers and does nothing to reduce anger.

A lot of anger stems from feeling out of control and disconnected. We don’t like what’s happening to us, to others or the world in general, but we feel powerless to change it. So, we take to social media to share our outrage, or we get very annoyed at small things when we can’t control the major ones.

Most brands will need to deal with people’s anger at one point or another. The question is, will they be able to turn that anger into constructive solutions – into genuine progress – or will they simply struggle to cope?

]]>https://polpeo.com/social-media-crisis-management-age-anger/feed/04684Is your brand prepared to be attacked on social media?https://polpeo.com/brand-prepared-attacked-social-media/
https://polpeo.com/brand-prepared-attacked-social-media/#respondMon, 04 Dec 2017 12:18:03 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4672Social media has revolutionised the way we communicate, but it’s also caused some problems. Issues that shouldn’t touch a brand can become reputational crises within hours. Fringe groups use social media gain disproportionate airtime for views held by a tiny handful of people. Social media gives them a voice. And that voice can get the...

]]>Social media has revolutionised the way we communicate, but it’s also caused some problems.

Issues that shouldn’t touch a brand can become reputational crises within hours. Fringe groups use social media gain disproportionate airtime for views held by a tiny handful of people. Social media gives them a voice. And that voice can get the attention of world leaders.

When President Trump retweeted fake videos posted by the far-right party, Britain First, he didn’t care about the veracity of the content he was giving a platform to. He didn’t care about what would happen as a result. In fact, the White House Press Secretary went on to say that it didn’t matter if the videos were real or not. It was about the message he was sending, not the content he sent.

Right.

So, how’s a brand to protect itself in a world where the views of a few can influence people’s opinions with a single tweet or Facebook post? Where ‘fake news’ is adopted by some as fact, simply because it chimes with their personal beliefs?

Where people act and react to what they read or hear without taking the time to think a matter through, to consider the truth?

Brands are involved

Like it or not, brands are being forced to take a stand on political issues. Because sometimes they’ll be dragged into the fray. Major brands have experienced the sudden shock of being attacked by President Trump. Amazon had $5bn wiped off its share value after one critical tweet.

Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt – many jobs being lost!

In 2014, an Australian company came under fire for trying to become a certified Halal supplier (or in the words of its sales and marketing manager, it “copped a pasting online”).

Campaigners against Halal successfully changed the business’ policy, and as a result, it lost a contract to supply Emirates, which would have netted it about $50,000 per annum.

What does this mean for brands?

Prepare for the unexpected

Brands are used to preparing for crises. They know what their business risks are and usually have solid plans in place for how to respond should the worst happen.

But sometimes you can’t see what’s about to happen. Toyota will have crisis plans in place to deal with a recalls. But it couldn’t possibly foresee being called out by the Leader of the Free World on Twitter. The result? Its share prices dropped by over 5% (more than $12bn in market value).

Toyota Motor said will build a new plant in Baja, Mexico, to build Corolla cars for U.S. NO WAY! Build plant in U.S. or pay big border tax.

Scale-up your social media team

Brands need to be able to scale up their social media teams quickly. Sometimes, the regular social media managers won’t have the experience to deal with a sudden, full-blown social media crisis. Even if they do, they’ll need support, and regular breaks. Dealing with any issue is draining, but dealing with a fast-paced crisis as it breaks on social media crisis is exhausting.

Practise dealing with the unexpected

Learning the theory of dealing with a crisis is a good start, but nothing helps you prepare like a practical rehearsal. Involve not just the social media team, but all departments involved in crisis management, in simulating a social media crisis (#shamlessplug). Don’t just rehearse what you know, but throw in a few surprises.

Take a stance

These are the moments that a brand’s values were created for. If you profess to stand for equality, diversity and transparency, you’d better believe that you need to demonstrate these values when it counts.

In 2013, when a Cheerios advert was attacked for showing a multiple heritage family, the brand stated: “Consumers have responded positively to our new Cheerios ad. At Cheerios, we know there are many kinds of families and we celebrate them all.”

This does mean opening the brand up to further criticism from extremists, but any reasonable person would respect a brand that adhered to its values, rather than one that only paid heed to them when convenient.

When Keurig was asked why it was advertising on controversial US show Hannity, it responded by saying that it was working with FOX News to get the ad taken off the show. It then faced a backlash from people who supported the conservative commentator.

Standing up for what you believe in means being willing to fight some battles, but it also proves that there is real passion and morality behind the brand, not just empty rhetoric.

Yes, social media can highlight the worst aspects of us, but it can also allow those with the courage to stand by their convictions to stand for what’s right.

]]>https://polpeo.com/brand-prepared-attacked-social-media/feed/04672How to respond to negative reviewshttps://polpeo.com/respond-negative-reviews/
https://polpeo.com/respond-negative-reviews/#respondTue, 22 Aug 2017 13:18:11 +0000https://polpeo.com/?p=4526The subtitle to this post should be: “in a way that doesn’t blow up in your face”. No reasonable person expects brands to be perfect. Mistakes happen, it’s the response (or lack of one) that counts. But sometimes businesses seem to feel like any negative feedback is an attack on themselves and their business. They...

]]>The subtitle to this post should be: “in a way that doesn’t blow up in your face”.

No reasonable person expects brands to be perfect.

Mistakes happen, it’s the response (or lack of one) that counts.

But sometimes businesses seem to feel like any negative feedback is an attack on themselves and their business.

They seem to think that somewhere out there, a small army of bitter people with too much time on their hands are busy trying to destroy everything they’ve accomplished. When really, all most of them want to do is leave honest feedback (okay, so there may be some spleen venting going on too).

Negative reviews or critical feedback?

The phrase “negative reviews” is designed to get us defensive. It says: “I am about to list the many ways in which you, sir, are rubbish”.

Critical feedback is an opportunity. A critical post allows the business owner, or a brand’s customer service team, to find out what isn’t working and improve its services.

It also gives the business a chance to demonstrate its speed of response and ability to empathise; and its willingness to acknowledge mistakes and make it up to the customer.

Even when the criticism is unfounded, critical feedback lets businesses show that they stand by their product or their employees (by politely correcting a customer when they’re wrong).

If you think about how many times we use a service or buy a product and don’t leave any sort of feedback, the fact that someone has taken the time out of their day to leave a comment about the service they received is important. It shows that (on some level) they care enough about their experience to spend more time talking about it. In choosing to write a review, they’re providing an opening for further dialogue.

How businesses have dealt with negative reviews

Apologise and fix the problem

This tweet from 2015 shows how brilliant JetBlue can be at customer service. When a passenger tweeted about his TV being broken during his flight, the airline replied quickly, showing sympathy, apologising and asking him to DM them his details so that they could offer him a something to make amends.

A fast response, combined with empathy and action, shows the customer that they’re valued. It also shows anyone else that might be watching that JetBlue is a brand that cares about its customers.

The customer isn’t always right

Businesses don’t need to apologise to people if they have nothing to apologise for. When a customer of Bennett’s Café & Bistro in York asked for hot water and a slice of lemon, she was peeved to be charged £2 for it and took to TripAdvisor to leave a negative review.

Rather than get angry, or apologise, the owner responded to the review by laying out exactly how much it cost to make the drink, from paying a decent wage to the person who served her, to other overheads. The response even got picked up by restaurant critic, Jay Rayner, who agreed with the owner. It got covered in the national media.

Most people understand that not all negative reviews are reasonable complaints, and you often find people coming out to support the business when this happens.

Biting sarcasm

When one Californian lady posted a scathing review of her stay at the Hotel Doolin in County Clare, Ireland, she may not have been fully prepared for the response.

The manager’s response, which seems to have vanished from the site, clarified that the receptionist had made a mistake, but that it was spotted and corrected that evening and the customer compensated a little extra. The rest of the response included such gems as:

“From the title of your review, other readers would think that you inadvertently stumbled into Hitchcock’s Jamaica Inn and that Hotel Doolin was full of brigands and cutthroats, that our staff wear eye patches and pantaloons and are hiding behind the pillars in the lobby, cutlass clenched between our teeth, waiting to jump out and pillage passerbys.”

And:

“I’m sensing a lot of anger in the review above and I know that you probably didn’t mean to let loose all that anger on us. Hey, sometimes people just need to vent. Sometimes at night when I come home from a long day’s work at the hotel, I check to see if everyone is in bed and then I go out into the field at the back of my house and scream into the darkness. I let it all out, like a wolf on a moonlit mountain. I feel better after that and nobody gets hurt. I’m not saying howling into the night like a wolf will work for you, I don’t know your circumstances, you may have neighbours that’ll think it is weird, but there are other ways of channelling rage that don’t have to involve Hotel Doolin and slandering Emma.”

But, what about the WiFi, you ask…

“With regards the Wi-Fi, yes, the Wi-Fi in the west of Ireland is the worst in Europe, there is nothing we can do about this for the moment, although I think we are getting high-speed broadband in the area pretty soon. in the meantime, to anybody else reading this review. DO NOT COME TO DOOLIN IF WI-FI IS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU THAN HUMAN INTERACTION, YOU WILL BE DISAPOINTED.”

Then it gets bloody…

“There are three men over the age of forty working in the hotel. Only one of them was working on the night you stayed, so we didn’t know how to deal with the ‘grumpy old men’ in your review, until my assistant manager came up with the only viable solution. We’ve decided to execute all three of these men to ensure that no other guests will have to endure the horrific ordeal you went through that evening in the bar. Paul, Martin and Luis will be blindfolded and shot in the back of the head at Fitz’s cross after mass this Sunday.”

And finally, ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’…

“You see, even though you hurt us deeply with your review, we’d still like to be friends, we’d love if you afforded us the opportunity to change your opinion of us and hope that you will return to Doolin someday. In fact, each year on the 30th February we have a party for our valued past customers who think we are liars, we all hold hands and dance around a campfire and sing songs that help us forget about the past and look with hope towards the future.”

The humour and personality used in the response got the hotel a lot of positive attention on social media. Sometimes we like someone to bite back.

Humility

When one former Masterchef finalist opened his new restaurant, he may not have been completely prepared for the perils of TripAdvisor. When one customer complained about the cost, and taste, of the food and drink.

The owner responded by first admitting that despite being told not to take these reviews personally, he did and then by talking about each point made.

While there was no apology, he explained what he was doing to improve things (also saying that the place has only been open for 4 weeks compared to the years that the other great local restaurants that the customer was comparing them to, had been running).

His response is very personal and very human.

Build-your-own crisis

Then there are the business owners who get so angry about a negative review that their response takes one person’s opinion and turns it into a reputational crisis.

One woman left a 2-star review on Google after her scantily-clad toddler filled visit to an American vegan café.

That would probably have been the end of it, the story is so outrageous that a lot of people wouldn’t have taken it seriously.

But then the owner/parent took to the restaurant’s Facebook page to complain about the customer’s attitude – calling everyone’s attention to the review still attached to their Google results.

As the story was picked up by local, and then international news sites, the owners continued to defend their stance, telling local news: “If you can’t do vegan, then don’t come here. If you can’t do children, don’t come here.”

They continued to debate the matter with people on their Facebook page, before temporarily taking their social media accounts offline.

In one post, the owner even asked why a customer didn’t grab the naked toddler off the table if they were on there, prompting a Facebook user to reply:

“I’m certainly not gunna touch somebody’s naked baby…too much of a liability. Geeze you just recommended randos grabbing your naked baby off a table. Dumbfounded.”

Negative reviews are only really negative if you frame them that way. Instead, a review can be constructive or something that is genuinely fake and malicious. Most people take negative reviews with a grain of salt anyway, especially if the author of it seems a tad highly strung.

If handled the right way, a genuine but critical review can end up benefiting the business by showing that it’s willing to listen to criticism and improve the products and services it offers.